How can we make sound replication decisions?

Clintin P. Davis-Stober, Alexandra Sarafoglou, Balazs Aczel, Suyog H. Chandramouli, Timothy M. Errington, Sarahanne M. Field, Ayelet Fishbach, Juliana Freire, John P.A. Ioannidis, Klaus Oberauer, Franco Pestilli, Susanne Ressl, Daniel J. Schad, Judith ter Schure, Katya Tentori, Don van Ravenzwaaij, Joachim Vandekerckhove, Odd Erik Gundersen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Replication and the reported crises impacting many fields of research have become a focal point for the sciences. This has led to reforms in publishing, methodological design and reporting, and increased numbers of experimental replications coordinated across many laboratories. While replication is rightly considered an indispensable tool of science, financial resources and researchers' time are quite limited. In this perspective, we examine different values and attitudes that scientists can consider when deciding whether to replicate a finding and how. We offer a conceptual framework for assessing the usefulness of various replication tools, such as preregistration.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere2401236121
JournalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Volume122
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2025

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • General

Keywords

  • methodology
  • reform
  • replication
  • reproducibility

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'How can we make sound replication decisions?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this